>this representation, "I think," is an act of spontaneity; that is to say, it cannot be regarded as belonging to mere sensibility. I call it pure apperception, in order to distinguish it from empirical; or primitive apperception, because it is self-consciousness which, whilst it gives birth to the representation" I think," must necessarily be capable of accompanying all our representations. It is in all acts of consciousness one and the same, and unaccompanied by it, no representation can exist for me.
YOU ARE NOT YOU-- YOU ARE ME.
you ever seen this?
nuh uh
I refuse to believe that he wrote in this way unironically. He must've been fricking around, like Joyce
>He must've been fricking around, like Joyce
Literally all the German Idealists were. Especially Hegel lol
The only term that was not defined up to that point was "apperception", which is excusable, considering that it was a widely known term in his time (since it is an essential concept in both Leibnizian and Wolffian philosophy, which were the most widely known philosophies in Kant's time)
> Now my contention is exactly the reverse of this. Experience, I believe, has no such inner duplicity; and the separation of it into consciousness and content comes, not by way of subtraction, but by way of addition -- the addition, to a given concrete piece of it, other sets of experiences, in connection with which severally its use or function may be of two different kinds. The paint will also serve here as an illustration. In a pot in a paint-shop, along with other paints, it serves in its entirety as so much saleable matter. Spread on a canvas, with other paints around it, it represents, on the contrary, a feature in a picture and performs a spiritual function. Just so, I maintain, does a given undivided portion of experience, taken in one context of associates, play the part of a knower, of a state of mind, of 'consciousness'; while in a different context the same undivided bit of experience plays the part of a thing known, of an objective 'content.' In a word, in one group it figures as a thought, in another group as a thing. And, since it can figure in both groups simultaneously we have every right to speak of it as subjective and objective, both at once. The dualism connoted by such double-barrelled terms as 'experience,' 'phenomenon,' 'datum,' 'Vorfindung' -- terms which, in philosophy at any rate, tend more and more to replace the single-barrelled terms of 'thought' and 'thing' -- that dualism, I say, is still preserved in this account, but reinterpreted, so that, instead of being mysterious and elusive, it becomes verifiable and concrete. It is an affair of relations, it falls outside, not inside, the single experience considered, and can always be particularized and defined.
Kantbros…
post shorter quotes
Stop posting kantshit
no
>that is to say, it cannot be regarded as belonging to mere sensibility
i got filtered right there. what does he mean by mere sensibility and why cannot be regarded as belonging to it?
self-cosnsciousness is distinct from the physical senses (sight, hearing, etc.) but also distinct from emotions, pain, pleasure, imaginings, inner monologue, and even non-discursive thought.
ok that's kinda what i thought but then what does "i think" being an act of sensibility have to do with it not being regarded as mere sensibility? isn't sensibility spontaneous?
>isn't sensibility spontaneous?
no no no no no... unless you believe in literally willing physical manifestations into existence-- then yes.
ohhh he means spontaneous in the sense that nothing external caused it. well ok in theory, but do we really believe nothing causes your inner monologue to go "i think"? while i'm sitting here my "i thinks" are different than when i go for a walk later.
>i think
he's not talking the literal internal monologue "I think" (since words are empirical) he just uses it as a token or sign to represent self-consciousness.
well it would have been a lot clearer if he had said that. then again it's a tiny excerpt i'm hoping he defined the shit earlier, also it's a translation, maybe it sucks.
>i'm hoping he defined the shit earlier
he does but sometimes he even defines things later. you have to realize he wrote for an audience he presupposed had a professional background in philosophy and philosophical terms. Also he presupposed his readers knew Latin and Greek (some of his terms are Germanized Latin and Greek).
>you have to realize he wrote for an audience he presupposed had a professional background in philosophy and philosophical terms. Also he presupposed his readers knew Latin and Greek (some of his terms are Germanized Latin and Greek).
Did it ever occur to him that such an audience would always be quite a minute % of the population?
Had he ever written a concise and clearer explanation of his ideas for a more general audience, or did he leave that to someone later?
>Had he ever written a concise and clearer explanation of his ideas for a more general audience, or did he leave that to someone later?
he never did but there were populatizers he personally knew and approved of like K. L. Reinhold.
Right. So if Kant's own work was, I don't know, a 10/10 on a complexity scale, where would Reinhold's fall? Relative as well to a modern pop-philosophy book like "Star Wars and Philosophy"
>Relative as well to a modern pop-philosophy book like "Star Wars and Philosophy"
probably not at that level of popular but definitely moreso than the Critique. There are popularizers who wrote in English but that was long after Kant died. I recommend picrel.
>filename
Very funny. We can't all spend 4 years learning philosophy at college.
oh I didn't I just read Kant in my free time. I work 40+ hours a week in a factory. I'm a poorgay who just had the need to know. Don't take the filename personal, I too am a brainlet relative to Kant.
How does John Watson’s explanation of Kant compare with, say Beiser’s, Henry Allison’s?
honestly idk I've never read Beiser or Allison.
I recommend the former. They are one of the two most esteemed scholars regarding German Idealism and Kant.
are they sympathetic to Kant? Would they consider themselves actually Kantians or just scholars of Kant studying him from a non-believer point of view?
I haven’t read Allison’s book yet, thence I said I recommend Beiser. But I don’t know nor do I care to know their personal views on Kant. What I know is that by reading their works the understanding of Kant’s philosophy can be expanded, at least by reading Beiser’s chapter in his book on German Idealism, I received a good context and reactions to the publication of Kant’s Critique at the time.
i meant an act of spontaneity. if they're both acts of spontaneity then what's the point? and if they're not is he saying senses are not spontaneous?
>is he saying senses are not spontaneous?
yes
>The capacity for receiving representations (receptivity) through the mode in which we are affected by objects, is called sensibility. By means of sensibility, therefore, objects are given to us
>the manner in which these representations are given in the mind without spontaneity, must, on account of this difference (the want of spontaneity), be called sensibility.
as opposed to the intellect or understanding
>Our knowledge springs from two main sources in the mind, first of which is the faculty or power of receiving representations (receptivity for impressions); the second is the power of cognizing by means of these representations (spontaneity in the production of conceptions).
This is most likely going to be an utterly moronic answer right here, but what I got from was that to claim the phrase "I think" cannot come from a place of mere sensory perception, but rather from a place of pure self-consciousness that amalgamates with previous (physical or epistemic) experiences you've had in the past.
I've never taken a philosophy course, and it shows.
Ever just think these guys were talking out of their ass.
no. only people who get filtered think that.
Kant certainly wasn't. Hegel on the other hand, for all intents and purposes, surely must've pulled about at least 40% of the Phenomenology out of his ass though.
Check the Science of Logic or his Lectures. Hegel was able to comunicate effectively his ideas, the issue with the Phenomenology is that it is mostly unedited, and that is excusable imho, considering that he had to write it as fast as possible during war time. Unfortunately he died just as he began revising it for a second edition
>Unfortunately he died just as he began revising it for a second edition
anybody ever try to do a remake?
If you're looking for a more accessible companion to the PoS check out Hegel's Ladder by H.S. Harris.
ok so shit i cough up the dough for the cambridge one? or can i get that other one with the black cover? i feel like cambridge shit is overpriced
>black cover
the hackett translation is shit. The cambridge is infinitely superior.
your best option as an Anglo is to get both the Max Müller translation (which only covers the First Edition of the Critique) and Meiklejohn translation (which only covers the second edition). They're both public domain now so you can get them for cheap.
Literal translations will always fall short. The best you can hope for (apart from mastering German) is a paraphrase from from someone in the correct spirit of the original author.
>the most perfect method, perhaps, of transferring the philosophy from the one language to the other, is by a faithful and animated paraphrase: faithful, with regard to retaining the sense of the author; and animated, with respect to preserving the fire of the original; calling it forth when latent, and expanding it when condensed. Such a one, will every where endeavour to improve the light, and fathom the depth of his author; to elucidate what is obscure, and to amplify, what in modern language would he unintelligibly concise.
- Thomas Taylor
Which came first, the "I think" or the knowledge of one's ability to think?
they are the same
>YOU ARE NOT YOU-- YOU ARE ME.
Nothing blatantly contradictive about this statement.
>can't into dialectic
ngmi
I know you can't, but I think I do.
Literally who cares lol
>Literally who cares
14 posters and legions of lurkers. now go back.
>14 posters and legions of lurkers
Yeah, no one. These people don't exist in life.
>15 posters
thanks for caring